M/s. Steel Plus Limited, Kolkata V. DCIT(IT), Circle - 2(1), , Kolkata

MA 200/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0190 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANKAR HALDER CIT SR DR REV
• Assessee Lawyers: RITUPARNA SINHA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C, KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] M.A. NOS. 199 & 200/KOL/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 1320 & 1321/KOL/2017) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. STEEL PLUS LIMITED................................................................APPELLANT GN-37B, SECTOR V, SALT LAKE KOLKATA 700 091. [PAN: AAFCS 3982 H] DCIT (IT), CIRCLE 2(1) KOLKATA........................RESPONDENT AAYAKAR BHAWANPOORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA 700 107. APPEARANCES BY: SMT. RITUPARNA SINHA & SHRI ANUP SINHA, AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI SANKAR HALDER, ADDL. CIT, SR. (DR) APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : NOVEMBER 30, 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : DECEMBER 07, 2018 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT BY THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKES ALLEGED TO HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED SEPTEMBER, 12, 2018 PASSED IN ITA NOS. 1320 & 1321/KOL/2017. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE BASICALLY TWO MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH REQUIRE RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2). SHE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE OBSERVATION RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAGRAPH NO. 9 OF ITS ORDER THAT THE TPO HAD CLEARLY MENTIONED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE CONCERNED COMPARABLE WERE AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC 2 MA NOS. 199 & 200/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. STEEL PLUS LTD. DOMAIN AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ASK FOR THE SAME SPECIFICALLY. SHE CONTENDED THAT THIS FINDING RECORDED BY THE TPO IN HIS ORDER WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND SINCE THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE CONCERNED COMPARABLES WAS RELIED UPON BY HIM WITHOUT PROVIDING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY THE TPO AND HIS ORDER WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, SHE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM VS CIT REPORTED IN 125 ITR 713 (SC) AND IN THE CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE KOLKATA (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4228 OF 2006). SHE CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HOWEVER OVERLOOKED THIS VITAL ASPECT AND REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GETTING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO/TPO BY RELYING ON THE WRONG FINDING RECORDED BY THE TPO. SHE CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THUS SUFFERS FROM MISTAKE AND THE SAME BEING APPARENT FROM RECORD IS LIABLE TO BE CORRECTED. 3. AS REGARDS THE SECOND MISTAKE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WERE DULY CONSIDERED BY HIM AND BY APPLYING HIS MIND, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY HIM. SHE CONTENDED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS IN SHORT, THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT CORRECT IN REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) BY ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT WELL DISCUSSED OR WELL REASONED. SHE CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE LD. CIT(A)HAD DULY CONSIDERED THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE REBUTTAL OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, THERE WAS A MISTAKE 3 MA NOS. 199 & 200/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. STEEL PLUS LTD. IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN HOLDING THAT THE CRYPTIC ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT WELL REASONED OR WELL DISCUSSED. SHE CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THUS CONTAINS MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THE SAME ARE REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED BY RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAS TAKEN A DECISION BY GIVING SPECIFIC REASONS THAT THE MATTER WAS REQUIRED TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING BY WAY OF PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS REVIEW OF THE SAID DECISION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 254(2). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SOLITARY COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 RELATING TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TP ADJUSTMENT WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAGRAPH NO. 6 TO 10 OF ITS ORDER DATED 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH AS MANY AS 12 GROUNDS ARE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN A TABULAR FORM ON EACH AND EVERY GROUND SEPARATELY, THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(A) OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 81,53,989/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT AND THE LIMITED GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE DID NOT ASK FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO/TPO WHICH WAS WARRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN THIS REGARD, HE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. 4 MA NOS. 199 & 200/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. STEEL PLUS LTD. CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH NO 7 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER TO THE EFFECT THAT TPO DID NOT PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ALONG WITH THE FAR ANALYSIS OF THE 3 ENTITIES NAMELY M/S. BAPCOCK PVT. LTD., M/S. NOWATA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. AND M/S. AAC STRUCTURE AND DESIGN PVT. LTD. SELECTED A COMPARABLES BY THE TPO. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM WAS CONTRARY TO THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE TPO IN PARAGRAPH NO 6.1 OF HIS ORDER WHEREIN IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED BY HIM THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ALL THE ENTITIES SELECTED BY HIM AS COMPARABLES WERE AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ASK FOR THE SAME. HE HAS ALSO POINTED OUT FROM PARAGRAPH NO 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ITSELF COLLECTED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE SAID COMPARABLES AND SUBMITTED THE SAME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HELD ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAT THE FAR OF M/S. BABCOCK BORSIG SOFTECH (P) LTD. WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE FAR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WHILE THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS OF THE OTHER TWO COMPARABLES NAMELY M/S. NAUVATA ENGG. (P) LTD. AND M/S. ASC STRUCTURE & DESIGNS (P) LTD. FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR WERE NOT AVAILABLE. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY REJECTED ALL THESE 3 COMPARABLES TAKEN BY THE TPO WITHOUT EVEN POINTING OUT AS TO HOW THE FAR OF M/S. BABCOCK BORSIG SOFTTECH PVT. LTD. WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE FAR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO IGNORED THE VITAL FACT THAT OP/OC OF THE OTHER TWO COMPARABLES WAS WORKED OUT BY THE TPO WHICH WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT THEIR PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS. 7. THE LEARNED DR HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT FROM PAGE NO 11 OF THE TPOS ORDER THAT ONE COMPARABLE NAMELY CADES DIGITECH (P) LTD. SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE TPO ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID ENTITY HAD ACCUMULATED LOSS OF MORE THAN 50 CRORES WHICH HAD SIGNIFICANTLY ERODED ITS NETWORTH AND THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT ABOUT THE ABILITY OF THE SAID ENTITY TO CONTINUE AS A GOING CONCERN. MOREOVER THE SAID COMPANY WAS ACQUIRED BY AXIS IT AND T LTD. WITH EFFECT FROM 24.10.2009 AND KEEPING IN VIEW THIS ABNORMAL SITUATION, THE SAID ENTITY WAS REJECTED BY THE TPO AS COMPARABLES. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER ACCEPTED THE SAID ENTITY AS COMPARABLE ON THE GROUND THAT ITS FAR WAS COMPARABLE TO THE FAR OF THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS TO COME TO THIS CONCLUSION AND ALSO FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ABNORMAL SITUATION POINTED OUT SPECIFICALLY BY THE TPO WHILE REJECTING THE SAID ENTITY AS COMPARABLES. THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT SIMILARLY THE OTHER TWO COMPARABLES NAMELY HARITA TECHSERV LTD. AND I-DESIGNER & ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE TPO FOR SPECIFIC 5 MA NOS. 199 & 200/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. STEEL PLUS LTD. REASONS AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING OR DISCUSSING THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE FAR OF THE SAID COMPANIES WAS COMPARABLE TO THE FAR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT NO REASON WHATSOEVER IS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER TO COME TO THIS CONCLUSION. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED DR AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO/TPO TO OFFER THEIR COMMENTS ON THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE MATTER BY SEEKING REMAND REPORT BEFORE ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A VERY CRYPTIC ORDER AND AFTER EXTRACTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON PAGE NO 3 TO 58 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, HE HAS GIVEN HIS CONCLUSIONS HARDLY ON ONE AND HALF PAGES. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DR, THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE TPO ON SPECIFIC GROUNDS, BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME ONLY BY STATING THAT THE FAR OF THE SAID ENTITIES WAS COMPARABLE TO THE FAR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON WHATSOEVER TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION AND HAS ALSO NOT COMMENTED UPON THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS GIVEN BY THE TPO FOR REJECTING THE SAID COMPARABLES. SIMILARLY THE ENTITIES SELECTED BY THE TPO AS COMPARABLES ON SPECIFIC GROUNDS WERE REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THEIR PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS NOT AVAILABLE. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DR, THE OP/OC OF THE SAID ENTITIES WAS WORKED OUT BY THE TPO IN HIS ORDER WHICH WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT HAVING THEIR PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THIS ASPECT, THEREFORE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE AO/TPO SEEKING THEIR COMMENTS. 9. IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE TPO DID NOT PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ALONG WITH THE FAR ANALYSIS OF THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY HIM AND THERE WAS THUS A VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY THE TPO. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TPO HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE SAID COMPARABLES WERE AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ASK FOR THE SAME SPECIFICALLY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) AT LEAST SHOULD HAVE REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE AO/TPO FOR PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ALONG WITH THE FAR ANALYSIS OF THE SAID COMPARABLES IF AT ALL, ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A), THERE WAS ANY VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY THE TPO. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT JUST AND PROPER TO SET 6 MA NOS. 199 & 200/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. STEEL PLUS LTD. ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIM FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GETTING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO/TPO AND BY PASSING A WELL REASONED AND WELL DISCUSSED ORDER. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 THUS IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 BEING ITA NO. 1321/K/2017, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN RELATING TO THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(A) OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE INVOLVED THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11. AS ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT TO THE SAID ISSUE AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES ARE SIMILAR TO A.Y. 2010-11, WE FOLLOW OUR DECISION RENDERED IN A.Y. 2010-11 AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AS PER THE SAME DIRECTION AS GIVEN FOR A.Y. 2010-11. 6. IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER AS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH NO 6 THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE TPO BY CONFRONTING AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE CONCERNED 3 ENTRIES SELECTED AS COMPARABLES WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IN THIS REGARD, A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE OBSERVATION RECORDED BY THE TPO IN HIS ORDER THAT THE SAID FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR THE SAME. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THIS OBSERVATION/FINDING OF THE TPO WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. MOREOVER, AS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSELF COLLECTED THE SAID FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND FURNISHED THE SAME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE TPOS CASE THAT THE SAME WERE AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN. NEVERTHELESS, THE TRIBUNAL STILL CONSIDERED IT JUST AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) SO THAT THE 7 MA NOS. 199 & 200/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. STEEL PLUS LTD. ASSESSEE COULD GET AN OPPORTUNITY IF AT ALL THERE WAS ANY VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY THE TPO. 7. AS REGARDS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM VS CIT (SUPRA) AND ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE KOLKATA (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE SAME ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS IN AS MUCH AS ADVERSE INFERENCE IN THE SAID CASES WAS DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE STATEMENTS WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINING THE DEPONENTS. THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE HOWEVER ARE DIFFERENT AS NOTED ABOVE AND THE RATIO LAID-DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM VS CIT REPORTED IN 125 ITR 713 (SC) AND IN THE CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE KOLKATA (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4228 OF 2006) CANNOT BE APPLIED ESPECIALLY WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2). 8. AS REGARDS THE OTHER MISTAKE ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN HOLDING THAT THE CRYPTIC ORDER BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT WELL REASONED AND WELL DISCUSSED, WE FIND THAT THERE WERE SPECIFIC REASONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAGRAPH NO 8 OF ITS ORDER TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE CRYPTIC ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT WELL REASONED AND WELL DISCUSSED. AS RIGHTLY CONFERRED BY THE LEARNED DR, A SPECIFIC VIEW IN THE MATTER WAS EXPRESSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AS WELL AS MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD 8 MA NOS. 199 & 200/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. STEEL PLUS LTD. AND THE SAME CANNOT BE REVIEWED IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2). WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THERE ARE NO MISTAKES MUCH LESS MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS CALLING FOR ANY RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2). IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE REJECT THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (S.S. GODARA) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 07/12/2018 BISWAJIT, SR. PS COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. STEEL PLUS LIMITED, GN-37B, SECTOR V, SALT LAKE, KOLKATA 700 091. 2. DCIT (IT), CIRCLE 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA 700 107. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. DR TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR. P.S. / H.O.O. ITAT, KOLKATA